Assessing Creative Persons*

ABSTRACT Personality assessment, in contrast to psychodiagnosis, psychological testing, and the measurement of individual differences, attempts to delineate the person as a whole through the use of a multiplicity of procedures and emphasizes the more favorable and positive aspects of personality and its potentialities for effective functioning. Developed during World War II, the method has been most extensively used by the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research, University of California. Berkeley, in its studies of highly creative persons. In these researches the characteristics of such persons have been effectively revealed, e.g., through the use of life history interviews, personality trait ratings, an adjective check list, and the Q-sort method, and their level of creativeness predicted by multiple regression analyses.     

中学生创造性思维能力自评测验的编制

创造性思维有多种构成,其能力表现也有多种,即创造性思维能力是多维结构的.常用的最佳表现测验形式,无法良好测量其多维结构.一些研究者认为创造性思维能力是个体内在稳定的智力品质,并尝试使用典型表现测验来测量.本研究沿用此思路,尝试开发一套中学生创造性思维能力自评测验,即测查个体在日常生活中是否具有一些典型的习惯或行为方式.采用理论的探讨与实证分析相结合的方法,取得如下结果:(1)确定创造性思维能力的10维测评结构;(2)经过两轮测试检验,形成正式测验,信效度良好.     

Measuring Metasyntactic Abilities: On a Classification of Metasyntactic Tasks

Researchers working on metasyntactic abilities (i.e., the metalinguistic ability associated with syntax) face the problem of defining and measuring them. Metasyntactic abilities is a multifaceted concept, which encompasses various types of behaviours, from being able to intentionally manipulate syntactic structures to being able to state syntactic rules, and the way in which it is defined and measured varies greatly from one study to another. The present paper proposes a theoretically informed classification of syntax related tasks. The first part presents previous research defining and distinguishing various types of syntactic and metasyntactic abilities and their interrelations. In the second part, commonly used tasks are described and analyzed in terms of the framework presented, with the aim of better pinpointing the type of ability measured by each task. Ultimately, with this analysis of commonly used tasks, we hope to offer criteria for discriminating between the various measures of metasyntactic abilities.     

Cognitive Abilities and Creative Behaviors: CAB-5 and Consequences

The validity of six indices of divergent production is examined with reference to creative output in eight content domains: visual arts, music, literature, theater, science and engineering, business ventures, apparel design, and video and photographic work. Undergraduates (n = 144) completed Consequences, four scales from the Comprehensive Ability Battery, and a specially developed self-report inventory that produced eight creative content scores and a total score. Correlational analysis determined that Semantic Fluency, Ideational Fluency, Originality and Remote Consequences were substantially correlated with most creative behaviors and were uncorrelated with grade point average. A factor analysis of criteria revealed two underlying patterns of creativity, suggesting that proficiency in one creative domain is predictive of proficiency in several others. The study of creativity has traditionally been propelled by aesthetic, scientific, and economic concerns. While revolutionary breakthroughs in science, technology, and design often command our attention and respect, it is the small, evolutionary innovations that typically have the greatest immediate economic impact (Haustein, 1981). From any vantage point there has always been an interest in the prediction and measurement of creative behavior and aptitude. The available measurement approaches for creativity include cognitive abilities, personality traits, self-reports of creative behavior and peer and teacher ratings of creative works (Hocevar, 1981). The purpose of this study is to assess the validity of an underresearched set of cognitive measures: four subtests of the Comprehensive Ability Battery (CAB-5; Hakstian & Cattell, 1976) and the Consequences test (Christensen, Merrifield, & Guilford, 1958). Our validity strategy was correlational; criteria were eight self-report indices of creative endeavor. The following paragraphs elaborate the underlying theory from which these measures originated and some unresolved issues. Perhaps the largest single breakthrough in the cognitive approach to understanding creativity came from Guilford's (1967) 120-factor structure of intellect model. While commonly used intelligence tests measure convergent forms of thinking, creativity involves divergent thought processes which, according to Guilford, account for 30 of the 120 factors of intelligence. Working through a factor analytic paradigm, Guilford was able to identify over 100 out of 120 factors. Guilford's structure of intellect may be criticized for having fractured intellectual functioning into too narrowly defined units relative to what human faculties are actually engaged in ordinary intellectual endeavors. Nonetheless, the theory did provide a provocative explanation for the nature of creative thought and some interesting measurements of same. Measurements of creative thought (divergent production) involve word fluency, category formation and reformation, ideational fluency original uses for common objects (opposite of functional fixedness). One test, Consequences (Christensen et al., 1958), is of particular concern to this research project and involves a certain amount of social awareness on the part of the examinee in conjunction with divergent production. In a typical test item, examinees are presented with a hypothetical situation, “What would be the consequences if people no longer needed to sleep?” along with a few common responses. Examinees are then given five minutes to write as many consequences of the hypothetical situation as they can think of. Responses are scored by, first, eliminating responses that are redundant with the samples or other responses or that are completely irrelevant Remaining responses are then categorized as obvious and remote. The numbers of obvious and remote responses are counted to produce two scores. Consequences continues to be listed as a research instrument by its publisher. Norms in the manual (Guilford & Guilford, 1980) are only available for 331 engineers who took two forms of the test, 665 ninth-graders, 80 twelfth graders, and a college sample of 87 cases. According to Guilford & Guilford, the consequences scores are closely related to other divergent production measures, remote more so than obvious. The CAB-5 developed by Hakstian & Cattell (1976, 1978) who also worked in the factor analytic mode, consists of 20 subscales that appear to capture the essentials of convergent and divergent thinking in a timed battery of manageable size. The four divergent thinking scales — semantic fluency, ideational fluency, word fluency, and originality — are of particular interest to this project While the usual types of validity and norm-building research have been done with the convergent scales (Hakstian & Cattell, 1976; Hakstian & Woolsey, 1985) little external validation work is available for the divergent scales. Hakstian & Woolsey (1985) found that semantic fluency and ideational fluency were significantly correlated with grades in an introductory psychology course (r = .33 and .30 respectively). The rationale for why divergent production would be related to grades in that course was vague. Norms for the divergent scales are currently available for 216 college and 1098 high school students. While the validation question is framed around a limited set of scales in this research project, it does represent an issue of more general concern. According to Storfer (1990), several researchers have questioned whether measures of divergent production have any external validity with actual creative works. He cited a study where teachers' ratings of their students' creativity were based on logical or convergent measures but had no relationship to divergent measures. In his review of creativity measures, Hocevar (1978) noted a generally low level of interrelationship among personality, cognitive, self-report, and rating measures of creativity; from this trend he opined that self-report measures of creative behavior were perhaps the most defensible indices of creativity. On the other hand, a study of approximately 500 college students showed that those that had won science prizes, or who published or exhibited their work scored higher than others on ideational fluency (Wallach & Wing, 1969). While the latter finding is reassuring, we are not convinced that prizes, publication, or exhibition represent the full range of creative behavior to be found at the college level. Prizes require a propensity to compete among the participants, and a proclivity toward subjectivity, among the judges. As academic researcher know, earth-shattering ideas are not quickly snapped up by scientific journals, and much of what is published is indicative of the evolutionary progress mentioned at the outset of this article. There is reason to assume that there is much valuable creative effort taking place that does not reach wide audiences or that is otherwise shoved into drawers. From a statistical point of view, it is preferable to conduct a criterion related validity study that encompasses a wide (if not complete) range of criterion values and to avoid an extreme groups methodology, such as a comparison of prizewinners and others. The latter has the impact of exaggerating the predictor-criterion effect size. Altogether, Hocevar (1981) identified 15 studies showing a positive relationship between divergent production and other measures of creativity, and 15 other studies that showed no such relationship. With the foregoing theoretical and methological points in mind, the following hypotheses were examined: 1. Consequences and CAB-5 divergent scale scores would be significantly related to several types of creative behavior. 2. Consequences and CAB-5 divergent scale scores would be significantly related to each other. 3. There would be a substantial interrelationship among the various types of creative behavior. Significant findings would dispel the notion among critics of divergent thinking theory (cf. Stolper, 1990) that the prediction of creativity is situationally specific. 4. Divergent measures and indices of creative behavior would not be related to college students' grade point average (GPA). While we recognize that no point is proven by failing to reject the null hypothesis, a null relationship with GPA is expected from the general theory, on the basis of findings concerning teachers' rates cited in Stolper (1990) and our own assumptions that much creative work goes unnoticed in favor of traditional academic demand. An expected null relationship thus adds an element of convergent-discriminant validity analysis to the research plan.     

Specificity and Abstraction of Examples: Opposite Effects on Fixation for Creative Ideation

Fixation is one of the major obstacles that individuals face in creative idea generation contexts. Several studies have shown that individuals unintentionally tend to fixate to the examples they are shown in a creative ideation task, even when instructed to avoid them. Most of these studies used examples formulated with high level of specificity. However, no study has examined individuals’ creative performance under an instruction to diverge from given examples, when these examples are formulated with a high level of abstraction. In the present study, we show that (a) instructing participants to avoid using common examples when formulated with a high level of specificity increases fixation; whereas (b) instructing participants to avoid such examples while using a more abstract level for stating these common examples—such as a categorization of these examples—mitigates fixation and doubles the number of creative ideas generated. These findings give new insights on the key role of categorization in creative ideation contexts.     

Leadership of Creative Teams*

Where there is a history of teamwork and cooperation, where multiple centers of resources exist, and where integrative sentiments prevail over territoriality, then the efforts of innovation are more likely to succeed … Innovation may be the only hope for the time ahead. (Kanter, 1984, p. 55)     

Intelligence Level and the Allocation of Resources for Creative Tasks: A Pupillometry Study

This pupillometry study examined the relationship between intelligence and creative cognition from the resource allocation perspective. It was hypothesized that, during a creative metaphor task, individuals with higher intelligence scores would have different resource allocation patterns than individuals with lower intelligence scores. The study also examined the influence of intelligence in language and visuo-spatial domains on the resource allocation mechanism of verbal and visual creativity. The results suggested that individuals with higher intelligence scores allocated more cognitive resources for creative tasks than those with lower intelligence scores but not for non-creative tasks. The findings of this study support the view that creativity requires allocation of several cognitive faculties and may share underlying cognitive and neural mechanisms with intelligence. Domain-specific intelligence did not seem to play a significant role in the same domain, as individuals with higher scores in both domains showed similar resource allocation patterns. However, individuals with higher intelligence scores in the visuo-spatial domain generated more creative metaphorical interpretations in both verbal and visual creative metaphor tasks suggesting its importance in creative cognition.     

创造性问题解决中的联想能力及其作用

长期以来,研究者一直认为联想能力与创造力之间存在着紧密的联系,但相关的实证研究并不能很好地支持这一论断,这可能是由于联想能力的界定不清所造成的。本研究梳理了以往研究中联想能力与创造力的关系,在此基础上辨析了联想能力测验所反映的实质,进一步提出了一个创造性问题解决中联想能力的作用模型：（1）联想能力主要作用于创造性问题解决中的重构阶段;（2）存在三种相对独立的联想能力,它们对空间类顿悟问题和言语类顿悟问题的影响不同;（3）联想内容中经验关系的联想能力与领域一般创造力关联最密切。     

Tasks for Assessing Memory for Temporal Order Versus Memory for Items in Aging

Younger and older adults were compared on new tests for item and temporal memory suitable for use in future electrophysiological or neuroimaging studies. Following a series of 10 simple line drawings, 4-choice panels containing two previously seen targets and two novel distractors appeared. Participants identified which pictures had been seen previously (item), or which of the items was presented earliest (temporal order). Performance of younger adults was superior to that of older adults. Memory for item and temporal order were equivalent in the younger group. In contrast, the item memory of the older group was superior to memory for temporal order, confirming previous evidence of differential impairment of memory for temporal order with age.     

创造性任务情境下社会惰化影响因素研究

研究一,采用单因素组间设计(合作组、名义组、个人组)检验创造性任务情境下是否存在社会惰化效应,结果显示:合作组状态下个体努力水平显著低于名义组,与个人组差异不显著;研究二,采用三因素组间设计(4×2×3)探讨创造性任务情境下社会惰化影响因素,结果显示:目标难度、绩效评估变量主效应显著且存在交互作用,而中期评估变量主效应不显著。研究结果提示:高难度目标、评估个体对群体的贡献可减弱创造性任务情境下的社会惰化效应。